"One shepherd ONE flock" (John 10:16)
Only 1 flock?
"LITTLE FLOCK of the Christ's brothers" and "GREAT FLOCK of the other sheep".
2 flocks?
I don't get it...
i don't want biblical answer, but from any watchtower publication.
has that question ever been answered in any watchtower publications?.
please, give me some references.. i expect answer from debator, alice, bane, scholar or any other active jehovah's witness.
"One shepherd ONE flock" (John 10:16)
Only 1 flock?
"LITTLE FLOCK of the Christ's brothers" and "GREAT FLOCK of the other sheep".
2 flocks?
I don't get it...
i don't want biblical answer, but from any watchtower publication.
has that question ever been answered in any watchtower publications?.
please, give me some references.. i expect answer from debator, alice, bane, scholar or any other active jehovah's witness.
BTTT
Yes I translated it and studied it.
Am I too stupid to understand that?
Yes, there is a statement:
"Would they be the Jewish disciples, whereas the “other sheep” would be the Gentiles who, in time, were accepted as anointed Christians? Though commentators of Christendom often present this explanation, it does not harmonize with other scriptures."
But it is not answered WHY COMMENTATORS OF CHRISTENDOM ARE WRONG!
Can you imagine this? Follow me:
Would they be the Jewish disciples, whereas the “other sheep” would be the Gentiles who, in time, were accepted as anointed Christians? Though commentators of Christendom often present this explanation, it does not harmonize with other scriptures.
Jesus said to his disciples: “Have no fear, little flock, because your Father has approved of giving you the kingdom.” (Luke 12:32) At other times Jesus Christ referred to this “little flock” of disciples as his “brothers.” (Matt. 12:49; Mark 3:34; Luke 8:21; John 20:17) When, in time, Gentiles were accepted by God, anointed with his holy spirit and called to heavenly life, they also were “joint heirs with Christ,” his “brothers.”
Logically, then, the “other sheep” would be persons who are not his “brothers” but who are brought into close association with them.
Am I stupid or there is really no connection between mentioned scriptures? I don't understand why the "other sheep" cannot be a part of the "little flock".
The inital question is:
Would the "other sheep" be the GENTILES? (the question is about their background or origin)
The logically answer is:
"No" because they (Gentiles) are called to HEAVENLY LIFE. (the answer is about their destiny or hope)
Can you imagine what the article says in conclusion:
Not being Christ’s brothers, the “other sheep” are evidently in line for the blessings of an earth free from sorrow and death.
AND NOWHERE NOWHERE NOWHERE IN THE ARTICLE IS EXPLAINED
WHY THE "OTHER SHEEP" ARE NOT BEING CHRIST'S BROTHERS?
It is explained why the sheep from Matthew 25 are not to be considered as Christ's brothers, but in conclusion it is applied to the sheep from John 10.
Next "can you imagine" moment is this:
The difference in the time element regarding the foreordination of the reward definitely points to two different destinies.
Because, there is one difference.
First, with earthly hope, were said:
“Inherit the kingdom prepared for you FROM the founding of the world.” (Matthew 25:34)
Second, with heavenly hope, were said:
“God chose us in union with Christ BEFORE the founding of the world.” (Ephesians 1:4)
So - if i understood it corectly - the heavenly hope came before the earthly hope? Is it what the article says?
It is explained in this way:
As soon as there began to be born to Adam and Eve children who would have an opportunity to come under Kingdom rule, God’s promise regarding such rule took effect.
So, when the first man with an opportunity to live in the kingdom (earthly part) was born, the kingdom (earthly part) was prepared (Matt. 25:34).
So - that's why it is said "FROM the founding of the world", that is "FROM the time when the first member of the mankind with earthly hope was born."
But EVIDENTLY, some people have had heavenly hope "BEFORE the founding of the world"?
Am I crazy?
Evidently!!!
does anyone know of any info that tells the back story on this article.
why the parents were disfellowshipped, did the woman disagree with the reasons leading to her disassociating herself, etc.. .
3 'but,' someone may ask, 'is it not harsh to expel and then refuse to talk with the expelled person?
what is that 884?
i would like to start my 1st post by saying thank you.
to the site itself and to all the posters.
my story begins with me meeting the woman of my dreams 4 years ago.
Hi Debator! How are you?
i am receiving all the letters/e-mails from bethel, i receive time reports(s4) from publishers and i also have access to all cong.
files, including jc information.. i am to a certain extend running our cong., so i am essentially the ceo of the cong.. what a feeling ex-bro's and sis's!
i never actually thought i'll be the ceo of any organisation in my life, thanks to jw's i now have the opportunity to "call the shots".. funny thing is they don't know that i am on a mission to "liquidate" this "company"(wbts)..
Why ex-bro? I am active JW and I serve as a real MS!
113 or 118?
Why is so difficult to answer that?
i am receiving all the letters/e-mails from bethel, i receive time reports(s4) from publishers and i also have access to all cong.
files, including jc information.. i am to a certain extend running our cong., so i am essentially the ceo of the cong.. what a feeling ex-bro's and sis's!
i never actually thought i'll be the ceo of any organisation in my life, thanks to jw's i now have the opportunity to "call the shots".. funny thing is they don't know that i am on a mission to "liquidate" this "company"(wbts)..
i am receiving all the letters/e-mails from bethel, i receive time reports(s4) from publishers and i also have access to all cong.
files, including jc information.. i am to a certain extend running our cong., so i am essentially the ceo of the cong.. what a feeling ex-bro's and sis's!
i never actually thought i'll be the ceo of any organisation in my life, thanks to jw's i now have the opportunity to "call the shots".. funny thing is they don't know that i am on a mission to "liquidate" this "company"(wbts)..
CXIII or CXVIII?
i am receiving all the letters/e-mails from bethel, i receive time reports(s4) from publishers and i also have access to all cong.
files, including jc information.. i am to a certain extend running our cong., so i am essentially the ceo of the cong.. what a feeling ex-bro's and sis's!
i never actually thought i'll be the ceo of any organisation in my life, thanks to jw's i now have the opportunity to "call the shots".. funny thing is they don't know that i am on a mission to "liquidate" this "company"(wbts)..
You should also be patient, and wait for next 113 (or 118) years to be appointed as MS.
i am receiving all the letters/e-mails from bethel, i receive time reports(s4) from publishers and i also have access to all cong.
files, including jc information.. i am to a certain extend running our cong., so i am essentially the ceo of the cong.. what a feeling ex-bro's and sis's!
i never actually thought i'll be the ceo of any organisation in my life, thanks to jw's i now have the opportunity to "call the shots".. funny thing is they don't know that i am on a mission to "liquidate" this "company"(wbts)..
One hundred and eighteen or one hundred and thirteen?
i am receiving all the letters/e-mails from bethel, i receive time reports(s4) from publishers and i also have access to all cong.
files, including jc information.. i am to a certain extend running our cong., so i am essentially the ceo of the cong.. what a feeling ex-bro's and sis's!
i never actually thought i'll be the ceo of any organisation in my life, thanks to jw's i now have the opportunity to "call the shots".. funny thing is they don't know that i am on a mission to "liquidate" this "company"(wbts)..
113 or 118?